3 ms·
Workable politically, practically it's been completely ineffective in reducing healthcare costs.
by GiorgioG 10y ago
Workable politically, practically it's been completely ineffective in reducing healthcare costs.
- ejstronge 10y agoThe ACA's goal was not to rein in healthcare spending (this potential shortcoming was discussed before it even passed). While there is funding for experiments aimed at reducing costs, none of the bill's major facets deal with this issue. Here's an article where one of the bill's intellectual architects talks about the topic: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1006571 http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1006571
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- kapauldo 10y agoThis is factually wrong. I have been providing health care for my employees since 2001. Pre ACA, rates rose 20% per year. Post ACA we've seen 5% raises most years, one year we saw a decrease, and this year, we saw 9%.
- GiorgioG 10y agoMaybe on paper you're factually correct. My rates didn't go up this year ($1800/month) but my benefits went down costing me about $3,000 more than last year.
- jellicle 10y agoActually, it has saved Americans trillions of dollars: http://fortune.com/2016/06/21/us-health-care-costs/ http://fortune.com/2016/06/21/us-health-care-costs/